Saturday, February 20, 2010

A shift in paradigm can lead, via the theory-dependence of observation, to a difference in one's experiences of things and thus to a change in one's phenomenal world.ON Thomas Kuhn

Control the information you control the people?:) Again as heart felt and idealistic you can become in your efforts, it's not enough to cry out in political verbiage because you'll always end up with another person saying that it is only a political perspective. That it is the progressive conservative you don't like and their leader? It's not enough.

So what do you do?

Do you succumb to the frustration that what is moving as a sub-culture working from the inside/out, is the idea that you can build a better consensus from what is moving the fabric of society to know that we can change the outcome as to what Canada shall become as well?

They( a conspirator thought) as a force that is undermining the public perception while society did not grasp the full understanding of what has been done to them. Society having been cast to fighting at the "local level to advance a larger agenda?"

Does it not seem that once you occupy the mind in such close quarter conflagrations that mind has been circumvented from the larger picture?

Pain, and emotional turmoil does this.

Historically once the fire has been started, like some phoenix, a new cultural idealism manifests as to what the individual actually wants when they are in full recognition that "as a force" moved forward in a democratic compunction as a government in waiting to advance the principals by which it can stand as the public mind.

However, the incommensurability thesis is not Kuhn's only positive philosophical thesis. Kuhn himself tells us that “The paradigm as shared example is the central element of what I now take to be the most novel and least understood aspect of [The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]” (1970a, 187). Nonetheless, Kuhn failed to develop the paradigm concept in his later work beyond an early application of its semantic aspects to the explanation of incommensurability. The explanation of scientific development in terms of paradigms was not only novel but radical too, insofar as it gives a naturalistic explanation of belief-change. Naturalism was not in the early 1960s the familiar part of philosophical landscape that it has subsequently become. Kuhn's explanation contrasted with explanations in terms of rules of method (or confirmation, falsification etc.) that most philosophers of science took to be constitutive of rationality. Furthermore, the relevant disciplines (psychology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence) were either insufficiently progressed to support Kuhn's contentions concerning paradigms, or were antithetical to them (in the case of classical AI). Now that naturalism has become an accepted component of philosophy, there has recently been interest in reassessing Kuhn's work in the light of developments in the relevant sciences, many of which provide corroboration for Kuhn's claim that science is driven by relations of perceived similarity and analogy to existing problems and their solutions (Nickles 2003b, Nersessian 2003). It may yet be that a characteristically Kuhnian thesis will play a prominent part in our understanding of science.

I would advance that the word "science" in quote above, be changed to "economy."

What paradigmatic solution has been advanced that such a thing can turn over the present equatorial function assigned to the pubic mind, that we will be in better control of our destinies as Canadians?

Precursor to such changes are revolutions in the thought patterns established as functionary pundits of money orientated societies. They have become "fixed to a particular agenda." Rote systems assumed and brought up in, extolled as to the highest moral obligation is to live well, and on the way, fix ourselves to debt written obligations that shall soon over come the sensibility of what it shall take to live?

Force upon them is the understanding that we had become a slave to our reason and a slave to a master disguised as what is healthy and knows no boundaries? A capitalistic dream.

Friday, February 12, 2010

The problem of heat can be a frustrating one if one can contend with the computer chips and how this may of resulted in a reboot of the machine( or it's death) into a better state of existence then what was previously used in working model form.

So the perfection is to the very defining model of a super race that is devoid of all the trappings in human form that can be ruled by the mistakes of combining body parts from Frankenstein sense to what the new terminator models have in taken over..but they are not human?

Multivac is a advanced computer that solves many of the world’s problems. The story opens on May 14, 2061 when Multivac has built a space station to harness the power of the sun – effectively giving humans access to a nearly unlimited source of power. Ah – and that’s the key, it is nearly unlimited. In fact two of Multivac’s technicians argue about this very idea – how long will humankind be able to glean energy from the universe? They decide to ask Multivac for the answer, and all it can say is “INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.” Oh well, it was a good idea, and through several smaller stories we see that many more people ask Multivac the same question. Multivac has a difficult time answering – it is a hard question after all! But when do we (and Multivac) finally learn the answer? As you’ve probably guessed – not until the very end of the story.

“You ask Multivac. I dare you. Five dollars says it can’t be done.”

“Adell was just drunk enough to try, just sober enough to be able to phrase the necessary symbols and operations into a question which, in words, might have corresponded to this: Will mankind one day without the net expenditure of energy be able to restore the sun to its full youthfulness even after it had died of old age?

Or maybe it could be put more simply like this: How can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased?Multivac fell dead and silent. The slow flashing of lights ceased, the distant sounds of clicking relays ended.

Then, just as the frightened technicians felt they could hold their breath no longer, there was a sudden springing to life of the teletype attached to that portion of Multivac. Five words were printed: INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.

From the Big Bang through the present day and well into the future, matter and dark matter in the universe is concentrated in stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters. Therefore, the universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium and objects can do physical work.[11], §VID. The decay time of a roughly galaxy-mass (1011solar masses) supermassive black hole due to Hawking radiation is on the order of 10100 years,[12], so entropy can be produced until at least that time. After that time, the universe enters the so-called dark era, and is expected to consist chiefly of a dilute gas of photons and leptons.[11], §VIA. With only very diffuse matter remaining, activity in the universe will have tailed off dramatically, with very low energy levels and very large time scales. Speculatively, it is possible that the Universe may enter a second inflationary epoch, or, assuming that the current vacuum state is a false vacuum, the vacuum may decay into a lower-energy state.[11], §VE. It is also possible that entropy production will cease and the universe will achieve heat death.[11], §VID.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the intelligence of machines and the branch of computer scienceintelligent agents,"[1] where an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions which maximize its chances of success.[2]John McCarthy, who coined the term in 1956,[3][4] which aims to create it. Textbooks define the field as "the study and design of defines it as "the science and engineering of making intelligent machines."The field was founded on the claim that a central property of humans, intelligence—the sapience of Homo sapiens—can be so precisely described that it can be simulated by a machine.[5] This raises philosophical issues about the nature of the mind and limits of scientific hubris, issues which have been addressed by myth, fiction and philosophy since antiquity.[6] Artificial intelligence has been the subject of breathtaking optimism,[7] has suffered stunning setbacks[8][9] and, today, has become an essential part of the technology industry, providing the heavy lifting for many of the most difficult problems in computer science.AI research is highly technical and specialized, deeply divided into subfields that often fail to communicate with each other.[10] Subfields have grown up around particular institutions, the work of individual researchers, the solution of specific problems, longstanding differences of opinion about how AI should be done and the application of widely differing tools. The central problems of AI include such traits as reasoning, knowledge, planning, learning, communication, perception and the ability to move and manipulate objects.[11] General intelligence (or "strong AI") is still a long-term goal of (some) research.[12]

Saturday, October 03, 2009

Seriously , there are defined differences in the human being versus AI Intelligence. I think people have a tendency to blurr the lines on machinery. This of course required some reading and wiki quotes herein help to orientate.

Of course the pictures in fiction development are closely related to the approach to development, while in some respects it represents to be more the development of the perfect human being

It seems there is a quest "to develop" human beings, not just robots.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the intelligence of machines and the branch of computer scienceintelligent agents,"[1] where an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions which maximize its chances of success.[2]John McCarthy, who coined the term in 1956,[3][4] which aims to create it. Textbooks define the field as "the study and design of defines it as "the science and engineering of making intelligent machines."The field was founded on the claim that a central property of humans, intelligence—the sapience of Homo sapiens—can be so precisely described that it can be simulated by a machine.[5] This raises philosophical issues about the nature of the mind and limits of scientific hubris, issues which have been addressed by myth, fiction and philosophy since antiquity.[6] Artificial intelligence has been the subject of breathtaking optimism,[7] has suffered stunning setbacks[8][9] and, today, has become an essential part of the technology industry, providing the heavy lifting for many of the most difficult problems in computer science.AI research is highly technical and specialized, deeply divided into subfields that often fail to communicate with each other.[10] Subfields have grown up around particular institutions, the work of individual researchers, the solution of specific problems, longstanding differences of opinion about how AI should be done and the application of widely differing tools. The central problems of AI include such traits as reasoning, knowledge, planning, learning, communication, perception and the ability to move and manipulate objects.[11] General intelligence (or "strong AI") is still a long-term goal of (some) research.[12]

Knowledge representation[43] and knowledge engineering[44] are central to AI research. Many of the problems machines are expected to solve will require extensive knowledge about the world. Among the things that AI needs to represent are: objects, properties, categories and relations between objects;[45] situations, events, states and time;[46] causes and effects;[47][48] and many other, less well researched domains. A complete representation of "what exists" is an ontology[49] (borrowing a word from traditional philosophy), of which the most general are called upper ontologies. knowledge about knowledge (what we know about what other people know);Among the most difficult problems in knowledge representation are:

Many of the things people know take the form of "working assumptions." For example, if a bird comes up in conversation, people typically picture an animal that is fist sized, sings, and flies. None of these things are true about all birds. John McCarthy identified this problem in 1969[50] as the qualification problem: for any commonsense rule that AI researchers care to represent, there tend to be a huge number of exceptions. Almost nothing is simply true or false in the way that abstract logic requires. AI research has explored a number of solutions to this problem.[51]

The number of atomic facts that the average person knows is astronomical. Research projects that attempt to build a complete knowledge base of commonsense knowledgeCyc) require enormous amounts of laborious ontological engineering — they must be built, by hand, one complicated concept at a time.[52] A major goal is to have the computer understand enough concepts to be able to learn by reading from sources like the internet, and thus be able to add to its own ontology. (e.g.,

Much of what people know is not represented as "facts" or "statements" that they could actually say out loud. For example, a chess master will avoid a particular chess position because it "feels too exposed"[53] or an art critic can take one look at a statue and instantly realize that it is a fake.[54] These are intuitions or tendencies that are represented in the brain non-consciously and sub-symbolically.[55] Knowledge like this informs, supports and provides a context for symbolic, conscious knowledge. As with the related problem of sub-symbolic reasoning, it is hoped that situated AI or computational intelligence will provide ways to represent this kind of knowledge.[55]

Emotion and social skills[73] play two roles for an intelligent agent. First, it must be able to predict the actions of others, by understanding their motives and emotional states. (This involves elements of game theory, decision theory, as well as the ability to model human emotions and the perceptual skills to detect emotions.) Also, for good human-computer interaction, an intelligent machine also needs to display emotions. At the very least it must appear polite and sensitive to the humans it interacts with. At best, it should have normal emotions itself.

An intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions which maximizes its chances of success. The simplest intelligent agents are programs that solve specific problems. The most complicated intelligent agents are rational, thinking humans.[92] The paradigm gives researchers license to study isolated problems and find solutions that are both verifiable and useful, without agreeing on one single approach. An agent that solves a specific problem can use any approach that works — some agents are symbolic and logical, some are sub-symbolic neural networks and others may use new approaches. The paradigm also gives researchers a common language to communicate with other fields—such as decision theory and economics—that also use concepts of abstract agents. The intelligent agent paradigm became widely accepted during the 1990s.[93]

So to me there is an understanding that needs to remain consistent in our views as one moves forward here to see that what is create is not really the human being that we are, but a manifestation of. I think people tend to "loose perspective" on human intelligence versus A.I. So that the issue then is to note these differences?
This distinction to me rests in "what outcomes are possible in the diversity of human population matched to a purpose for personal development toward an ideal." No match can be found in terms of this creative attachment which can arise distinctive to each person's in probable outcome. The difference here is that "if" all knowledge already existed, and "if" we were to have access to this "collective unconscious per say," then how it is that such thinking cannot point toward new paradigms for personal development that are developed in society? New science?
AI Intelligence already has all these knowledge factors inclusive, so it can give outcomes according to a "quantum leap??":) No, it needs human intervention, or AI can already give us that new science? You see? There would be "no need" for an Einstein?

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

“In this edition, as a fifth appendix, a presentation of my views on the problem of space in general and the gradual modifications of our ideas on space resulting from the influence of the relativistic view-point. I wished to show that space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept of “empty space” loses its meaning”. A. Einstein (June 9th, 1952)

The first photo is the morning panel discussion. From left to right, Eric Weinstein, Nouriel Roubini, Richard Freeman and Nassim Taleb.

The Economic Crisis and its Implications for The Science of Economics.

May 1 - 4, 2009Perimeter Institute

Concerns over the current financial situation are giving rise to a need to evaluate the very mathematics that underpins economics as a predictive and descriptive science. A growing desire to examine economics through the lens of diverse scientific methodologies - including physics and complex systems - is making way to a meeting of leading economists and theorists of finance together with physicists, mathematicians, biologists and computer scientists in an effort to evaluate current theories of markets and identify key issues that can motivate new directions for research. Perimeter Institute was suggested to be the gathering point and conference organizers plan to foster a very careful, dispassionate discussion, in an atmosphere governed by the modesty and open mindedness that characterizes the scientific community.

The conference will begin on May 1, 2009, with a day of talks by leading experts to an invited audience on the status of economic and financial theory in light of the current situation. Three days of private, focused discussions and workshops will ensue, aimed at addressing complex questions and defining future research agendas for the world that can help address and resolve them.

The economy is in a ideological struggle to be free:) The more you try to pull it apart the stronger it resists.:)But in a collision, what happens. The rest, you know about?:)

Jets Provide Evidence for Quark Confinement Models

Deep inelastic scattering experiments provided the evidence that the proton and neutron are made up of three more fundamental particles called quarks . One type of experiment in the proton-antiproton colliders produces jets of mesons which correlate with the models of quark confinement. As visualized in the bag model for quark confinement, an individual quark cannot be pulled free because the energy required to do it is much greater than the pair production energy of a quark-antiquark pair. If in a high energy collision, something scatters directly off one of the constituent quarks, it will give it a high energy. With an energy many times the pair production energy, it will create a jet of quark-antiquark pairs (mesons).

At times the economy can flow quite easily, while other times, it resists. It is the elastic nature that defines the symbiotic relation of a cultural thinking about what the economy can actually permit, and what of itself, it shall not.

This is a "toposense" synesthesically imbued as relevant too, an expression of what can surround the "psychology of society?" What proof do I have that such thinking geometrically induced shall not find itself "in movement" as it is thought about, as well? Dynamically this was lead too. How one can move in straight lines and such, was moved to a new mode of thinking that excels toward a movement in thought. It is done, as if theoretically moved toward a QGP recognition of the dynamical recognition, as if, the theory of strings.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

I must say to you that in my case I am asking of Calabi Yau's, can have some predictability to how universe selection is accomplished and thus any steady development in mathematics pushing that landscape to credibility?

This entry is for representing a point of view much clearer then had been previously demonstrated in the following links shown below at the bottom of this post.

I wouldn’t exactly say that the evidence presented on its own would not have been enough, yet rather that it became more quickly evident and compelling as the speaker was relaying his findings and conclusions while reliving for us his ‘eureka” moment you might say. This has the learner trade places with the discoverer as to experience the moment. Anthony Zee had the same effect on me in the book I have mentioned. Where I am certain you are correct is that despite the abilities of the teacher if one is not open to things in these ways they will never be sought to be enjoyed. This for me is the difference in simply learning a fact and realizing a truth.

Of course I like humour and in this context, it can show another side to the coin to show that while it has a quality to it in that humour, it also has a science consideration in structure as well. The Aristotelean arch is representative here then of the moment that the climax is reached, as if telling a story about, and we know very well its meaning.

It is the assessment of a "body of thought" that arranges itself around a progressive point of view, that while matter forming in retention times of those smaller peaks of the classroom it became the written word of the orators. You see, smaller peaks versus written transmission of the idea.

That this place can reside in the thinking mind is a quandary of sorts knowing full well the probabilistic outcome ensures that the direction, after critical thinking, is the way in which the mind comes to see itself as it rests in the valley below. Conceptually the thinking has formed.

You see while some are expanding their physical horizons, it is of note that I see they had been expanding their mental one too. Some have comment on the flexibility of an intelligent mind to traverse across the globe of that same thinking mind, to expand the relationships that are psycho relevant in an metaphorical relation to contract it to a humour of a kind, and a hence a deeper meaning.

So in all aspects while we see this relational pictorial chart it is in relation to the potential I see, that any mind might have settled down to a state to have caught the jest of the revision so that its relevance can been seen in that same relationship to the universe at large.

So the peak in this case is a rendition of the unstableness of the pencil in relation to Cosmic inflation. That any mind might come to this position is to recognize that it has found the fastest route to the understanding of the symmetry of this universe and that th energy contained here is although unstable it is found to be expressive.

Friday, March 06, 2009

I wanted to offer a perspective that recognizes the coin as a basis of the reality much as strings would be as contingent products of the whole theory of economics. So in this context that quantum mechanically one perceive the basis of this exploration into the vast transactions taking place within a larger framework, is the idea that I have would have to include all possible transaction much as E8 would encapsulate. So it becomes an object of the economic system.

I take to heart, what fear may be induced into the society, is an assessment of where stand now, which allows a projection into the future. This then, is the particulate discriminant of money as a basis of that society, that we now ask while facing the object of E8, that such a universe in expression is recognized as topics discussed as theorems produced. Are "Transactional Phase Changes" in the economy.

I end this blog posting encapsulating these Transactional Phase Changes in context of the structure accumulative too, and as an object of the whole system. Not yet have I described the quality here to be taken into account while only mentioning the mechanics of this Monetary Universe.

***

May 1 - 4, 2009Perimeter Institute

The Perimeter Institute conference on economics is being organized in an effort to better evaluate the state of economics as a predictive and descriptive science in light of the current market crisis. We believe that this requires careful, dispassionate discussion, in an atmosphere governed by the modesty and open mindedness that characterizes the scientific community. To do this we aim to bring leading economists and theorists of finance together with physicists, mathematicians, biologists and computer scientists to evaluate current theories of markets, and identify key issues that can motivate new directions for research.

The conference will begin on May 1, 2009, with a day of invited talks by leading experts to a public audience of around 200 on the status of economic and financial theory in light of the crisis. We will then continue for three days of focused discussion and workshops with an invited group of around 30, aimed at defining research agendas that address that question and beginning work on them.

Abstract: The close relationship between geometry and fundamental physics can be seen from surveying the basic equations underlying the known forces of nature. What has made these repeated appearances of gauge fields and curvature tensors particularly striking in recent years is lack of any comparable applications outside of the Standard Model and General Relativity. In this talk we will pose the question of whether Yang-Mills theory is simply a unifying principle with application well beyond its current use by exhibiting unreasonably effective applications of Gauge Theory beyond those familiar in the Natural Sciences. Armed with these examples, we will then revisit the question about what is most truly special about the Standard Model and Relativity.

In law and economics, the Coase theorem, attributed to Ronald Coase, describes the economic efficiency of an economic allocation or outcome in the presence of externalities. The theorem states that when trade in an externality is possible and there are no transaction costs, bargaining will lead to an efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property rights. In practice, obstacles to bargaining or poorly defined property rights can prevent Coasian bargaining.

This theorem, along with his 1937 paper on the nature of the firm (which also emphasizes the role of transaction costs), earned Coase the 1991 Nobel Prize in Economics. The Coase theorem is an important basis for most modern economic analyses of government regulation, especially in the case of externalities. George Stigler summarized the resolution of the externality problem in the absence of transaction costs in a 1966 economics textbook in terms of private and social cost, and for the first time called it a "theorem". Since the 1960s, a voluminous literature on the Coase theorem and its various interpretations, proofs, and criticism has developed and continues to grow.

Miller was awarded the 1990 Nobel Prize in Economics, along with Harry Markowitz and William Sharpe, for their "work in the theory of financial economics," with Miller specifically cited for "fundamental contributions to the theory of corporate finance."

In physics, gauge theory is a quantum field theory where the Lagrangian is invariant under certain transformations. The transformations (called local gauge transformations) form a Lie group which is referred to as the symmetry group or the gauge group of the theory. For each group parameter there is a corresponding vector field called gauge field which helps to make the Lagrangian gauge invariant. The quanta of the gauge field are called gauge bosons. If the symmetry group is non-commutative, the gauge theory is referred to as non-abelian or Yang-Mills theory. Quantum electrodynamics is an abelian gauge theory with the symmetry group U(1) and one gauge field, the electromagnetic field, with the photon being the gauge boson. The standard model is a non-abelian gauge theory with the symmetry group U(1)×SU(2)×SU(3) and twelve gauge bosons: the photon, three weak bosons Z0 and W^\pm; and eight gluons.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

What a false illusion thou art to human mind ! How cruelly thou deceivest thy possessor and those who covet thee ! Thou buyest for me by thy betrayal of mankind. Thou didst tax my energy to gain thee, and thy discount has lost to me and my fellow-men the greatest blessings of a continent, as well as the principal products of our toil. Few indeed are they who know and understand thy seductive power. We shall expose thy falseness so that our children shalt not be deceived by thee.

What has been transpiring in the economy as of late is a wonderful exercise for me.

When you see the credibility of scientists and an economist open themselves to scrutiny "to wonder", if they are just replaying the inevitable and not really offering anything new?

The market prices of commodities vary from day to day and often several times a day. This occurs when there is no radical difference in the proportion of the supply and the natural demand. This fact is conclusive proof that our system is controlled by manipulators and fundamentally wrong. I have sought to elucidate this problem within this volume and have suggested a plan which, if adopted, would make the people the master of the world, instead of the present master—THE MONEY TRUST.

I am repeating the article the article here for consideration.

Is it more astonishing that a God created all that exists in six days, or that the natural processes of the creative universe have yielded galaxies, chemistry, life, agency, meaning, value, consciousness, culture without a Creator. In my mind and heart, the overwhelming answer is that the truth as best we know it, that all arose with no Creator agent, all on its wondrous own, is so awesome and stunning that it is God enough for me and I hope much of humankind.

Stuart Alan Kauffman(28 September 1939) is an US American theoretical biologist and complex systems researcher concerning the origin of life on Earth. He is best known for arguing that the complexity of biological systems and organisms might result as much from self-organization and far-from-equilibrium dynamics as from Darwinian natural selection, as well as for proposing the first models of Boolean networks.

Kauffman presently holds a joint appointment at the University of Calgary in Biological Sciences and in Physics and Astronomy, and is an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Philosophy. He is also an iCORE (Informatics Research Circle of Excellence) [1] chair and the director of the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics.

Well now, I have followed the work of those whose ultimate destination has been by seeking results from LHC as to the nature of some Higg's field that would bring together an organizational effort to the particle of nature. Now I should be much clearer here just as Stuart Kauffman should.

Higgs Fields

A Higgs field (named after a Scottish physicist Peter Higgs) is a field supposed to be responsible for the genesis of inertial mass (and, because of Einstein's equivalence principle, gravitational mass). When the universe is extremely hot, a Higgs field (which is supposed to have a certain curve of potential energy; as regards the shape of this curve, there is no unique consensus, except for a certain general feature, among the physicists) exerts a wild influence; but we will neglect this here. Once the universe cools down enough, below a certain temerature, the Higgs field assumes a certain value (i.e. a value of the Higgs field) which corresponds to the lowest energy level (i.e. the potential energy is zero, but the value of the Higgs field is nonzero; this level may be called vacuum). And this energy level continues to prevail throughout the whole universe (uniform, nonzero Higgs field).

So here I am alone thinking about this self organization that goes on and I picked out Stuart Kauffman's book because I know that such a view is garnered by the likes of Lee Smolin, that it presents a challenge for me.

Been at it long enough to know there are opposing views and methods to determination that shall judge one's approach as too the "nature of reality." I am not going to go into the definition of this nature of reality but to assume that such a definition will become apparent in the selection of this title and the consequence of choosing Stuart's book. My reasons for expanding here under this title of the new Garden of Eden.

How it it that I could ever compare the very nature of the "Arch Model" to the insightful development of us as participants in the nature of reality that we could shape our destines and not think us less then a participant in this adventure called life.

Experimentally, this became a basis for exploration which implanted experimental choice departures from euclidean space, which is flat.

This was a mathematical adventure of "pure thought" toward the process of interpreting this mathematics in the natural world.

How could one say the experimental process was first when such thought had to exist? It had to already exist in nature for us to test the theorization by definition.

So we emulate the process by experimentation. Oh sweet "spooky action at a distance?"

One should not think that such an avenue of research had not taken me down this road in regards to spooky, that I would not have adventured too, entanglement, or scattering amplitudes, that I would not of looked at Young's experiment and thought about the photon's travel. The combination or how calorimeters have been used to discern this interaction in the decay process.

Has Reductionism run to it's limit?

This is what Stuart Kauffman did not realize when thinking about reductionism or what Robert Laughlin spoke of toward the idea's of self organizational attributes of those things that gather, while we take them apart. It's not that they ever came to a definition of this limit, but tried to explain reductionism away, by the introduction of new ways, new approaches.

The Keystone

ON one side of this arch is an approach to Reductionism, and on the other, is emergence. The keystone, is the Equivalence principal.

Sunday, December 30, 2007

"I have never deviated from the name I use, so you get the sense of who I am.

I do not see how "pushing back the physics and energies involved" would have made these issues abut cosmology inept or classed as fantasy in the making.

Tim May, some things helped toward our understanding whether they are in the kitchen "to help gain in conceptual understanding, what others are less then able to explain in their opinion biased.

Gabe:I really don’t have any knowledge of this, but: What exactly are they trying to say about liquid helium phases and extra dimensions?

Has anyone has sufficiently answered Coin or Gabe in their questions to have offered a conclusion?

Thanks Bee for challenging what would have otherwise been a chorus of the same ole, same ole."

Now what choice do I have, if I were to comment on anything that had to do with what "String theory is doing?" Now, I would have supposedly worn out the title of any string theory article as coming from Zombie central.

Now you know the title of this post and it's origination. The source of inspiration that allows me to comment and let stand, as to the substance of Peter Woit's post. The comments that come along as well.

Zombies

What more can I say, that by putting out front the reasons why this process is not just some fantasy woven for illusionists Peter seems to qualify. To all those who may speak toward the topic of string theory or not.

Will media just leave it "to the expert" to speak for them and not challenge what is the highest opinion Peter has for the topic of string theory? I guess if you are not willing to do the work, then like Scientist, it is better to not write an article and let it die a quick death.

The Articles in Question?

Since I too cannot gain access to the Nature article without paying, I can only go by the "press releases" that Peter has been kind enough to show us. So these are directed to the Nature article.

Again it is one that has to be purchased from nature. All I can do it "re-quote" the selections Peter has made, and direct you to the quotes in question. You have to take my word for what is represented and how it is used by Peter. Sorry. See source of quotes here

The subject of string cosmology is a hot one these days, with theoretical advances in understanding string dynamics riffing with recent precise observations of the cosmic microwave background

The quality of the details of the comparison between 3He and cosmology is not really the point. Like a tap-dancing snake, what is amazing is not that it is done well, but that it is done at all.

Contribution to Zombie Central?

I can only assume that the example given is none other then what Peter has classified?

Now, just hold your horses here while we consider not only the context of this article by Richard Highfield, but of the very questions I myself have asked that we might consider the context of the Telegraph article other then contributing to Zombie Central.

Warning to Viewers

It is true that there has been a lot of debate about how information currently being dealt within in science articles are giving concern to people at the forefront of science. So in this effort I see what Peter is saying. Scientists are indeed asking for this responsibility, and not just of the media themself , but of the individual in their "pursuit of the truth" of what is being portrayed out there in the science media's global vision.

I do not sanction "the classifications" that have been drummed up by Peter Woit, from intelligent design theorists, to Zombies.

The View of the Cosmos?

Now why is it that we would look to the cosmos and ask ourselves about the views that would happen in the context of universal display, as having some relevances to the microsomal world that surrounds us.

Over and over again, we are directed to applications of what happens in that cosmos as experimental processes which reveal the origins of the universe in that microcosm view? So they use a test tube. The origins of life has it's basis in that tube on a simplistic level, whether you'd like to think so or not.

Would it have been better to use the "image of the tube" and an emergent image of the colliders over top of it, as a better view of the microscopic view of the world we live in?

So to get from the cosmos pallet of investigation, to one of drawing analogicalviews of the vortices, is not so uncommon that we can see such vortices out there in the cosmos and not draw some conclusion to the "relativistic interpretation" that may arise in some super fluid?

I can understand Tim May's "bubble in the test analogy in the kitchen," but I would have drawn a better parallel to sonofusion(you can find examples of this on this site) as an example about reduction to the "principals of the early universe." While I see such collapse dynamically related to "gravitational collapse" this is my view with regards to the increase in temperature values that may have been attributed to the ideas about the energy increase in blackhole development and motivation for providing the routes for cosmological expansion rates. An analogy, yes.

The escape pathway for that "extra energy" to loose itself, while the computations of the values of particle creations are left for inspection. Where did that extra energy go? Is it such a "bad question" to have when looking at the microscopic view of particle creation in the birth of our cosmos? To have the universe being in such a cosmological state, that the variance of speed of expansion shall vary? Explained, with such a idea?

Relativistic Fluid Dynamics: Physics for Many Different Scales-Nils Andersson and Gregory L. Comer

So you understand that the views of the string theorist is not limited to the microcosmic view, but endorses the cosmological one as well.:) See the Lagrangian views supplied on this site to understand how gravity has been incorporated in the cosmological view.

There is always an "inverse order to Gravity" that helps one see in ways that we are not accustom too. The methods of "prospective measurements" in science have taken a radical turn? Satellites as a measure, have focused our views.

While one may now look at the "sun in a different way" it had to first display itself across the "neutrino Sudbury screen" before we knew to picture the sun now in the way we do. It was progressive, in the way the sun now forms a picture of what we now know in measure.

So you try and bring it all together under this "new way of seeing" and hopefully your account of "the way reality is," is shared by others who now understand what the heck I am doing?

"Uncertainty" has this way of rearing it's head once we reduce our perspective to the microscopic principals(sand), yet, on the other side of the coin, how is it that only 5% of mass determination allows us to see the universe mapped in the way it has in regards to the CMB?

There is this "entropic valuation" and with it, temperature. Some do not like the porridge "to hot or to cold," with regards to "living in a place" within the universe.

So I'll repeat the blog comment entry here in this blog so one can gather some of what I mean.

As a lay person with regards to the complexity of the language(sound)and universe, it is sometimes reduced to "seeing in ways that are much easier to deal with," although of course, it may not be the same for everyone?:)

So now that you have this "comprehensive view" I have gained on the way I am seeing the universe. You can "now see" how diverse the application of sound in analogy is. It is helping me to develop the "Colour of Gravity" as a artistic endeavour. I refrain from calling it "scientific" and be labelled a crackpot.

A Synesthesic View on Life.

Who knows how I can put these things together and come up with what I do. Yet, it had not gone unnoticed that such concepts could merge into one another, and come out with some tangible result as a "artistic effort." Some may be used to the paintings of Kandinsky(abstract), yet the plethora of imaging that unfolds in the conceptual framework might have been self evident, from such a chaotic mess of the layman's view here?

Sunday, June 12, 2005

I have often wonder whether or not my opinions about left and right aspect battling in society, are right?:) Peter Woit saids string theory is right wing financed? I hate to dread that media has been perversive enough in order to support political factions affecting science?

So I'll tell you how affected I have become too, so you can see that the greater significance and responsibility is not really about right and left, but about science's perspective about the state of affairs beyond the matters at hand?

I couldn't help think of the flavour of good scientific minds, who would rise to the challenge, and make the theoretical approach some struggle between good and evil? As some atheistic attempt, "to remove informative possibilities" from the subject that might have come from the "trigger of emergent properties"? I don't say change quantum mechanical porpityies either just that we see it in context of a new model. Is this wrong, or right?

Fancy free, and without adeu, I cast myself on what it must be like, if such a fancy was taken to the issues of "Intelligent design," that it could have ever undermined the basis of this literary conversation, to have scientists designated here and there, as a division, regardless of the virtues of scientific inquiry held to both.

So herein, begins the story.:)

"The soul that rises with us, our life's star, Hath had elsewhere its setting, And cometh from afar."

"Intimations of Immortality" by William Wordsworth

>"Or, if through lower lives I came-- Tho' all experience past became, Consolidate in mind and frame-- I might forget my weaker lot; For is not our first year forgot? The haunts of memory echo not."

"Two Voices" by Tennyson

"As to you, Life, I reckon you are the leavings of many deaths, No doubt I have died myself ten thousand times before."

The struggle then is something contained back in our history, to have those who will guide us through common sense to say, that the evils of society are no less the roads taken by revisionist who would try and change the path of Christianity? Be smited by, those who hold on religious tenant might have been extolled into the future of lives? Where go these "lost souls" while they converge on string theory and try and change history?:)

This larger font sized comment directs us in our quest to wonder what had been going with the anti-stringy camps who might have challenged the views? Is there sufficient data to back up the statements, other then to stand as "religous converts of a point of view," soley spoken by the "more advanced," might have their reasons why this approach is insufficient? Other then, to hold the roads of a predawn attempts in christianity to a societal way of thinking, contrary, to the established views written in the years of Constantinople in 538?:)

In post below this one the question of extra energy was a important one in that it highlights the question of those "extra dimensions or not." For my generalized view, there is no leading explanation to the general public that would annouce how this diversion from current scientific approaches of Cern, will lead to satisfaction of the road of super string theory has taken. To understand, it is not willy nilley approach to some "Intelligent design quest" that such string theorists had been cornered too, in discription by anti-stringy voices?

From what I had understood contrary to this view of the string camp, it's only opositon was LQG and the roads that lead in that general direction. At least these were directions that operated from a basis of discrete or continuity, other then mere speculation of the sort that would dissuaade most readers from idolizing , and being drawn into the lair of lions?:)

It was as if the rhtymns of life could been entangled in minds and the quantum Harmonic osccilator embedded to language that science found in the true numerical basis of eisstance, that it could be cast in forms of shakesperean words, and hidden from the view by Francis Bacon's true discourse on history?

On constitution reform, Jefferson Davis words needed revision, to have a man like Benjamin Franklin stand up and devote a treaty on reason? It would guide the American view, to a healthy and just system of inquiry, as to the rights and freedoms shared by the American views? What lessons lie in scientific inquiry then to have those who stand at the forefront, and make it some intangible realism of the "forces of light and darkness "fighting to bring society into it's talons?

"Death, so called, is but older matter dressed In some new form. And in a varied vest, From tenement to tenement though tossed, The soul is still the same, the figure only lost."